dontfeartheringo wrote:What kind of commie put this thing together?

sparky wrote:I am bemused as to why you are so offended by what is nothing other than a simple indicator. Of course it is binary. If you can devise a test that takes only ten minutes to complete that provides a significantly more nuanced measure of one's beliefs over such a broad range of issues, then I take my hat of to you.

Moreover, it is just a bit of fun. Why so offended? You're right that it is simplistic and binary, but it does mark out clear differences. The one friend to whom I sent this today had a significantly different result to most of those here. If it was as rigged as you claim, then this would not happen.

unarmedman wrote:[Johnny13 has it right: in reality are exceptions to everything, and variables. But there, you're either pro-taxation, or anti. Pro-globalisation for business, or for humanity (you can't be anti-globalisation? how about anti-corporate subsidy?). They define nationalism as inherently authoritarian. How ridiculous.

Political Compass wrote:Firstly, a few words about popular political terms.

Once you accept that left and right are merely measures of economic position, the "extreme right" refers to extremely liberal economics that may be practised by social authoritarians or social libertarians.

Similarly, the "extreme left" identifies a strong degree of state economic control, which may also be accompanied by liberal or authoritarian social policies.

It's muddled thinking to simply describe the likes of the British National Party as "extreme right". The truth is that on issues like health, transport, housing, protectionism and globalisation, their economics are left of Labour, let alone the Conservatives. It's in areas like police power, military power, school discipline, law and order, race and nationalism that the BNP's real extremism - as authoritarians - is clear.

This mirrors France's National Front. In running some local governments, they reinstated certain welfare measures which their Socialist predecessors had abandoned. Like similar authoritarian parties that have sprung up around Europe, they have come to be seen in some quarters as champions of the underdog, as long as the underdog isn't Black, Arab, gay or Jewish ! With mainstream Social Democratic parties adopting - reluctantly or enthusiastically - the new economic libertarian orthodoxy (neo-liberalism), much of their old economic baggage has been pinched by National Socialism. It's becoming the only sort of socialism on offer. Election debates between mainstream parties are increasingly about managerial competence rather than any clash of vision and economic direction.

In the United States, the voices of dissent over unfettered market forces (ie extreme right economics) are heard from social authoritarians like Pat Buchanan as well as social liberals like Ralph Nader.

As an example, take a look at the ground that the main English parties in the UK's 2003 local elections (May 1) occupied in reality. The difference between the BNP and the Greens in economics isn't great, but there's a huge gap on the social scale. Neither scale, however, reveals enormous distances between the Conservatives and New Labour.

sparky wrote:Now now dftr, no need to go into past history... Minds change and all that. I still voted for Blair after the Iraq War started.

How is sunny Athens today? Nice, I hope!

Edit: you know, for quite some time I misread your forum name as don't feather ringo, which is a sad reflection on my perverted mind.

Cranius wrote:They do go some way in explaining that, but I take your point:

unarmedman wrote:When I say it can easily be rigged, I didn't mean by the creators, I mean by test-takers. It is easy to see where the lines for such binaries as "authoritarian" or "libertarian" are, and just as easy to cross them as you see fit.

dontfeartheringo wrote:

How is sunny Athens today? Nice, I hope!